Full auto/select fire???

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Abolish No-Knock Warrants.

 

WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO:

 

"We have the place surrounded, come out with your hands up!" . . .

 

Are you telling me that doing this would result in More danger to the police? If the fuckers want to wait it out, toss some tear-gas into the home. But shit, you busting through a door at night is just ASKING to get shot, cops or not.

 

SURVEILLANCE would work wonders to help as well.

EXAMPLE: He comes home every day for lunch at 1pm, swat be ready to go around the corner in an unmarked van at 12:30. When he shows up, we'll move in. They move in, surround the house, and tell him to come out....

 

His choices: Come out peacefully, come out shooting, or not come out. If he starts firing, blow the doors and get his ass. If not, let him come out peacefully.

 

I sure as fuck know it'd be safer for innocent people.

 

Pepper spray the damn dogs, it's painful but they won't die. If it works on BEARS it will work on a Pit.

 

 

ANYONE who supports SWAT and LEO No-Knock raids is a fascist. I'm sorry guys, but they just plainly are draconian. They suck.

 

I don't even do any drugs except Advil, and I say DROP this war on Drugs. If you want to fight a WAR ON DRUGS, post the swat guys at the BORDERS and shoot the drug runners, not innocent family dogs.

[cellsworth 21]

Sometimes there is no ideal solution to a problem. You are left with selecting the option that best balances the trade-offs involved. There are times when a no-knock warrant is appropriate, but the consequences of bad intel or some other screw up could be very grave indeed. Azrial and madmilo brought up some good points, but so did others coming from a different perspective. Perhaps the bottom line is that no-knock warrants should only be executed when there is very good reason to believe that serving the warrant in a different manner would present a substantially greater risk to the public AND the law enforcement personnel are certain that they are after the right person in the right place. If they are not certain, then more intelligence gathering is necessary.

 

If anyone breaks down my door in the middle of the night, with me knowing that I have not committed any crime, it is highly likely that they are doing so with nefarious intent, and I will react accordingly. I would expect any mentally prepared law-abiding citizen to do the same. If it turned out to be law-enforcement officers, then I would immediately "stand down" as soon as I became aware of that. However, who knows if it would be in time for me or them?

[cellsworth 21]

I am no big fan of no-knock warrants, but I am even less enthusiastic about ignorant, irrational hysteria.

 

WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO:

 

"We have the place surrounded, come out with your hands up!" . . .

 

Are you telling me that doing this would result in More danger to the police? If the fuckers want to wait it out, toss some tear-gas into the home. But shit, you busting through a door at night is just ASKING to get shot, cops or not.

 

 

Of course that strategy could result in more danger to police AND the public. First, that would give a known violent armed felon (as a typical example) the opportunity to grab their weapons and prepare for the police. Second, have you ever heard of a hostage situation? They can end very badly indeed, and preventing them from developing is one of the reasons that no-knock warrants are used. By the way, there are many instances in which tear gas has failed to produce the desired results. I can agree that more care should be exercised in planning and carrying out no-knock warrants than sometimes is. I can even accept that they should be more a method of last resort. The fact is, however, that there are circumstances in which they are appropriate. On the whole, far more lives have been saved than lost through their use. You only hear about the disasters though.

 

 

SURVEILLANCE would work wonders to help as well.

EXAMPLE: He comes home every day for lunch at 1pm, swat be ready to go around the corner in an unmarked van at 12:30. When he shows up, we'll move in. They move in, surround the house, and tell him to come out....

 

 

If only hardened criminals would generally be so cooperative and predictable. Surveillance is, of course, appropriate. It is also used as a matter of course. Sometimes, it does yield information that allows for a nice, neat, peaceful arrest. However, it is really naive to suggest that will always be the case.

 

 

Pepper spray the damn dogs, it's painful but they won't die. If it works on BEARS it will work on a Pit.

 

 

Pepper spray can be a useful tool, but it is grossly overrated by many people. It usually works with bears, but not always. It usually works with dogs, but not always. It doesn't even always work with people. All this is true even when the pepper spray is applied under ideal controlled conditions. I know this from the scientific literature on the topic, anecdotal evidence from others in the law enforcement profession, and personal experience in training. Moreover, when serving a high-risk warrant, officers don't enter with pepper spray in hand; rather, they enter with a gun in hand. If a dog comes at them, there isn't time to effectively deploy pepper spray.

 

 

ANYONE who supports SWAT and LEO No-Knock raids is a fascist.

 

 

What a nice, absolute, unfounded assertion. Care to provide some evidence to support that statement? I would say that I have effectively refuted that point without even having to try hard. Madmilo has as well.

 

 

I don't even do any drugs except Advil, and I say DROP this war on Drugs. If you want to fight a WAR ON DRUGS, post the swat guys at the BORDERS and shoot the drug runners, not innocent family dogs.

 

 

Without going into a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of "the war on drugs," I would hope you realize that not all illicit drugs come across the borders (methamphetamine, GHB, inhalents, psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana, peyote, illegally obtained prescription drugs, etc.). Also, I would think that shooting every apparent drug runner in the border regions would be much more problematic than executing no-knock warrants. Either you are shooting them because "available intelligence" indicates that they are probably drug runners (as opposed to a hunter, hiker, rancher, etc.); or you are stopping them, finding that they are indeed transporting illicit drugs, and then executing them on the spot.

 

Extreme posts are fine, but it sure would be nice if people would bother to get their facts straight.

[Modiano 5]

I am no big fan of no-knock warrants, but I am even less enthusiastic about ignorant, irrational hysteria.

 

 

 

 

ANYONE who supports SWAT and LEO No-Knock raids is a fascist.

 

 

What a nice, absolute, unfounded assertion. Care to provide some evidence to support that statement? I would say that I have effectively refuted that point without even having to try hard. Madmilo has as well.

 

how about, instead of 'fascist,' saiganoobie said 'ignorant of the 4th amendment, freedom, and the american way'?

Edited September 8, 2008 by Modiano

[cellsworth 21]

how about, instead of 'fascist,' saiganoobie said 'ignorant of the 4th amendment, freedom, and the american way'?

 

 

That would be better, but still erroneous. Since the Fourth Amendment was enacted to preserve preexisting freedoms, and that is part of the American way, I'll confine myself to a brief treatment of no-knock warrants within the context of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Since in the case of a no-knock warrant, there is in fact a warrant duly based upon a finding of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, the issue hinges on what is "reasonable." That is debatable, and there has, indeed, been a great deal of debate on the issue of reasonableness in search and seizure. Valid points were made on both sides in this very thread. Legal scholars have argued different positions at length. As I noted in a previous post, sometimes there is no ideal solution to a problem, and you are left with selecting the option that best balances the trade-offs involved. I submit that this is one of those situations. The prevailing view is that, while in most instances the police should "knock and announce" prior to making entry, there are some very limited circumstances in which their entering without first "knocking and announcing" would be justified and reasonable. This is supported by the bulk of the legal scholarship on the issue, as well as by case law. You have every right to disagree, and there are certainly legitimate concerns surrounding the practice; but experience has shown that proper execution of no-knock warrants, in the very limited circumstances in which they are allowed, actually reduces the risk to all involved.

 

Humans are fallible, and mistakes can be made in any human endeavor. In general, the screw-ups get the lion's share of the press. That is true in law enforcement, military operations, medicine, etc. Even when everything is done properly, there is always some risk. Some "horror stories" can be dug up with respect to many practices that are very beneficial on the whole.

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[SaigaNoobie 66]

OK ok, Not facist, but ignorant of the 4th amendment.

 

Sometimes my thoughts get ahead of my hands and what comes out lacks certain necessary explanations.

 

 

What I mean is: If these no-knock warrants are about the war on drugs, which it seems many of them are, then innocent lives are put in danger because of the war like treatment of drugs. If it's truly a war, fight the war where many of the drugs enter the country. Ports and borders. Don't fight the war in my neighborhood because some douche is making money selling weed.

 

If you feel the need to get all mall-ninja'd up and bust into a home, shoot a dog, and terrorize people, then take that aggression and put it to use on the border. You'd accomplish limiting drug trafficking and limiting illegal invasigration.

 

 

 

I don't think reasonable cause from an affirmation of oath by an "Informant" should be enough. How about the informant says "Joe has a hydroponic's lab" and then they investigate the area for PROOF that there is one. If no proof is established you don't go. . . Manufacturing evidence doesn't count either.

 

Also, Departments should be 100% accountable for all damages in cases of mistaken residences and false witness by "informants". Right now, they bust into your home, kill your dog, steal whatever they want, break items, and walk away like nothing happened. The family sues and the suit is thrown out because the cops were "just doing their job"... and the courts, which decide the civil case, gave the cops the go-ahead to break in.

 

 

 

 

No-knock warrants scare me to death. It's a fear. Fears are emotional. Sometimes my emotions get the better of me when I type. It's sometimes hard to be rational about an emotional subject, that's why I'm glad you guys are here to say "Saiganoobie, that's dumb, here's why." and I read it and go, "That makes sense, let me re-think this" and we go on our merry ways with a discussion.

 

 

~Saiganoobie

[Eric Pate 478]

+1 I'm with ya SaigaNoobie.

No-Knock warrants express the idea of predetermined guilt.

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[read_the_wall 614]

"You guys are right. We are all here just to make life hard on you and find away to take your belongings and put you in jail. We are all looking for a reason to get all "mall-ninja'd up" and bust a cap on some fool."

 

I knew it..........lol

 

 

But really, you do what you have to do to stay safe, and get rid of the bad element......and thank you.

[bigj480 203]

It's good to hear that these warrants are used in extreme cases and with a lot of preparation in your experience, even if mistakes are rarely made in other jurisdictions. My main question for you is what should I do if I hear my door being taken out at night? I realize that the chance of it being LEOs that are mistakingly raiding my house is slim and that it will most likely be a criminal. That's why I can't just stay in bed. Do you think that police should be responsible for any damage done in these raids? I mean, if it's their(your) best option, fine but the department should pay for any damages to property or people.

 

On the other hand, I can also see DistalRadius's point that "No-Knock warrants express the idea of predetermined guilt." After all, if you assumed that the occupant was innocent it would be hard to justify raiding their homes with weapons drawn. I think if you break into someones home and they are not charged with the crime that the warrant was issued for, the department owes them BIG TIME. Also, if found innocent of the original charge, the occupants should be off of the hook EVEN IF they pull a gun on YOU. It sounds harsh, but it is just because they(especially being innocent) have good reason to believe that those committing the B&E are criminals. Now, if they shoot first it is more questionable, one should identify their target before firing. My only qualm about that is that when an LEO sees an innocent homeowner holding a gun in that situation they are likely to shoot. The police have the benefit of a uniform that makes it reasonable to assume that they mean no harm, I don't have that benefit, there is no innocent homeowner uniform. I will be treated as armed and dangerous even if innocent and defending my own home. That goes back to DistalRadius's point. What's your opinion on this, madmilo?

Edited September 9, 2008 by bigj480

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

I think I'll solve all this by leaving the light on with a closed circuit camera so I know who is there. Great discussion on both sides and like read_the_wall said, "But really, you do what you have to do to stay safe, and get rid of the bad element......and thank you."

 

1911

[SaigaNoobie 66]

I think I'll solve all this by leaving the light on with a closed circuit camera so I know who is there. Great discussion on both sides and like read_the_wall said, "But really, you do what you have to do to stay safe, and get rid of the bad element......and thank you."

 

1911

 

 

That's a fine idea 1911. Seems knowing who's on the other side of the door would be very helpful.

[Bayoupiper 738]

I cannot believe the hysteria some of you are pushing into this!

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

Nothing like a little hysteria to keep the read going.

[bigj480 203]

I cannot believe the hysteria some of you are pushing into this!

 

For instance? Criticism is good, just make it constructive. I think most of us realize that the cases involving the wrong houses are the exception, but it still happens too often. As long as they follow the same guidelines that were mentioned by madmilo and they pay for any damage to property or people there would be almost no problems. I still have a bit of a problem with it because "we" are breaking into people's homes and pointing guns at people who SHOULD be presumed innocent. If the suspect pulls a gun on a cop in most instances it's an open and closed case, the suspect intentionally escalated the situation. When a team of cops break into your home and threaten your life, weather you have committed a crime or not, THEY have intentionally escalated the situation. In that situation(that the LEOs created) an armed home owner attempting to protect themselves and their family, innocent or not, is likely to get shot. Is that reasonable? It may be tactically advantageous, but that is a separate issue. It becomes less of a tactical question and more of a civil rights question. If I'm shot because I had a gun in my hand when ANYONE breaks into my home unannounced, the intruders DESERVE to be charged with a crime. It is THEIR fault, no two ways about it.

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[bigj480 203]

I personally don't live in the jurisdiction in which I work. I do however have enough confidence in the law enforcement agency that works in my area that I do not fear getting raided by the good guys.

 

I don't think that it is likely for this to happen to law abiding citizens in any jurisdiction. The problem is that I like to be prepared for the unlikely.

 

I don't sell drugs or weapons, I don't rob banks gas stations or liquor stores, I'm not involved in any conspiracies to over throw the government, and I'm not a sexual predator trying to lure young children in for a Wonder land sleep over. There is no reason for me to fear that my home is going to be invaded by the local fuzz.

 

Is this directed at the suspects past or the crime that is on the warrant? If it's the crime that the warrant was issued for, you should assume that they are innocent, right? If you are talking about the suspects violent history, I understand the practicality of assuming that they will be a threat to others if being served a warrant. Notice I said "violent", not "criminal". Are these tactics only used on non-violent convicted felons? Any misdemeanors that would indicate a person is violent enough to warrant such an action? This is never used in you jurisdiction, that you know of, just to keep drug dealers from flushing evidence?

 

With that said, I keep a 500 S&W by the bed and an S12 in the closet when I'm sleeping. Any other time I have a Glock 35 on me. If someone comes into my house with evil intentions, I am going to defend my family. Like I have said before, No Knock warrants are not allowed in my state except in the most extreme circumstances.

 

I guess I need to find out the situation in my jurisdiction, any Idea bout how I should go about doing so?

 

The door just bursting open without an annoucement stating Police and search warrant would be my first clue that these ain't the good guys.

 

Understandable, but I'll wait until I see them before dropping my gun. Although it's rare, some criminals use impersonation to make a home invasion easier.

 

As for the damage, if it is the police that make the mistake and there is damage or injury then you had better believe that at the very least, there will be monetary compensation by the department and maybe even the officers involved. If the mistake can be deemed as careless or malicious then jail terms may even be in order.

 

Do the police pay for damages even if they have the right house, whether the suspect is convicted or found innocent?

 

When I first got hired on back in the 80's, I heard stories from the old timers about how things were in the "Good old days" and was disgusted. I couldn't believe that officers acted that way and actually got away with it. They did up until the late 1960's when a good portion of them went to jail for various nefarious activities. Then there was a continual change for the good. I can't speak for other cities and counties but here there is a consant policing of our own. By this I mean that if I see another officer stepping out of line I will call him on it and I will not jepardize my job or freedom over another officers activity. You will find that most of us feel that way.

 

Of course, who would allow others to jeopardize their own freedom? It seems that back then people were less afraid of the consequences . Do you feel that the fear of consequences is a result of attitude change or public pressure? I assume it's both. It's not surprising that there was corruption back then, these were the same people that abused "coloreds".

 

I wonder if police have to prove that they adequately identified themselves and gave the suspect the chance to drop his gun in cases like the one involving Tracy Ingle.

[Modiano 5]

how about, instead of 'fascist,' saiganoobie said 'ignorant of the 4th amendment, freedom, and the american way'?

 

 

That would be better, but still erroneous. Since the Fourth Amendment was enacted to preserve preexisting freedoms, and that is part of the American way, I'll confine myself to a brief treatment of no-knock warrants within the context of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Since in the case of a no-knock warrant, there is in fact a warrant duly based upon a finding of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, the issue hinges on what is "reasonable." That is debatable, and there has, indeed, been a great deal of debate on the issue of reasonableness in search and seizure. Valid points were made on both sides in this very thread. Legal scholars have argued different positions at length. As I noted in a previous post, sometimes there is no ideal solution to a problem, and you are left with selecting the option that best balances the trade-offs involved. I submit that this is one of those situations. The prevailing view is that, while in most instances the police should "knock and announce" prior to making entry, there are some very limited circumstances in which their entering without first "knocking and announcing" would be justified and reasonable. This is supported by the bulk of the legal scholarship on the issue, as well as by case law. You have every right to disagree, and there are certainly legitimate concerns surrounding the practice; but experience has shown that proper execution of no-knock warrants, in the very limited circumstances in which they are allowed, actually reduces the risk to all involved.

 

Humans are fallible, and mistakes can be made in any human endeavor. In general, the screw-ups get the lion's share of the press. That is true in law enforcement, military operations, medicine, etc. Even when everything is done properly, there is always some risk. Some "horror stories" can be dug up with respect to many practices that are very beneficial on the whole.

 

i can see that you're definitely an 'optimist' regarding executive powers. problem with no-knocks, is there aren't enough checks and balances. departments all around the country are making themselves look like shithead paramilitary dumbasses when they get a warrant and no-knock it, based on faulty/incomplete informant information, or just plain stupidity.

 

after the entry team has killed the family pets or killed innocent residents, they claim that they followed proper procedure and pass the blame to the informant. google it, search on youtube, you'll find news reports. "informant told us it was a yellow house with a pickup in the driveway. we entered, neutralized the dogs, and opened fire on the resident that appeared defensive and appeared to be getting a weapon. we didn't realize that the real target was a yellow house with a pickup in the driveway 5 houses down."

 

so i guess there's a few questions that no-knockers need to ask themselves:

1. what suspected crimes justify a no-knock/flashbang/assault team? kidnapping, sure...real terrorism, sure...10 kilo a week armed coke house, sure...but small-time drug raids? that's what 99% of no-knocks are. if most of what they sell is $100 or less bags of weed, a few crack rocks, or a bottle of pills...i don't see how that as what the supreme court was expecting no-knocks to be used

2. can you put a number on the acceptable 'bad no-knock warrants'? 5 innocent people and 5 dogs a year? put a number to that. then imagine if a good friend, or family member, or their dog was shot because of bad information or just plain stupidity.

 

as a group, drug informants are unreliable . they might mix up the address, they might give the name of another small time user or small time dealer, or just make something up...but they won't give the names of the BIG players, because they either don't know them, or know they'll get killed for snitching on mr kilo-a-day

 

speaking of snitches, a police dept of a neighboring town i grew up in had a really bad habit of threatening kids who had practically nothing...a joint or a roach...they'd say, 'we'll let you go tonight if you call us tomorrow and tell us where were can find a 1/4lb'. is that kid going to give the name of the REAL big time dope man? no, they'll be scrounging to name some little guy they don't like or just make something up because they don't know a real dope man.

 

sad part of that is, once the cops let the kid go...HE'S FREE and he doesn't even know it. he doesn't have to ID anyone and they can't charge him for that roach after the fact. he'll probably just get harassed by the same cops that lied to him in the first place. they'll pull him over when they see him or shine spot lights in his house.

 

i think the single most effective change that could be made regarding law enforcement would be "LEOs cannot lie." imagine that. that's protection of unreasonable search and seizure (4th amend). citizens wouldn't be coherced into self incrimination (5th amend). how many times have you been pulled over and the cop said "smells like you've been drinking", or "smells like marijuana" and you'd love to say "you smell like a pile of lying pig shit." how many people have admitted to crimes they didn't commit because LEOs lied to them? no double standards, if i go to jail for lying to a cop, a cop goes to jail for lying to me.

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[cellsworth 21]

i can see that you're definitely an 'optimist' regarding executive powers.

 

 

Wrong. I am all for limited government that is minimally intrusive in the lives of law-abiding citizens. I think that governmental entities have gotten to be ridiculously bloated and controlling. I view any exercise of power by the government with skepticism. I support an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and the amendments thereto. I also take the time to learn the facts and consider them rationally, and I know how the criminal justice system actually works. Madmilo has done an excellent (and very patient) job of explaining things, and I have tried to do so as well. There is no point in wasting any more time on this. Some people you just can't reach....

 

The last thing I will say about this, for those who are interested in the truth, is that "no-knock" is simply a method that is used in certain very limited circumstances to serve an ordinary search/arrest warrant that has already been issued. There is no "presumption of guilt" that goes into determining if using the "no-knock" method of serving a warrant is justified. Rather, there must be compelling, credible information indicating that the risks (to police and/or others) would be substantially greater using the "knock and announce" method of warrant service as opposed to the "no-knock" method. Some departments may also allow the "no-knock" method to be used if it would otherwise be likely that crucial evidence in a major case would be disposed of. In most cases, I would not approve of this last justification alone.

Edited September 10, 2008 by hogdog

[Modiano 5]

i agree with what hogdog has said right up there, but no-knocks warrants are not being issued like they were intended to be. is it the judges that are giving them out too freely, or is it the police requesting the no knocks lying about the evidence/circumstances?

 

Update: Ex-Atlanta detective says they 'routinely lied' to get no-knock warrants

 

i agree, no knocks are a tool, but not a tool designed for every small time drug raid. they're for BIG stuff like hostages, kidnappings, real terrorism, BIG time drug houses, etc.

 

"possibility of drugs, and possibility of guns" should not be a reason for no knocks. EVERY house has those possibilities. and innocent people that get raided should have the right to defend themselves against home invasion teams that bust in yelling 'where's the dope?!?!'

Edited September 11, 2008 by Modiano

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[Modiano 5]

I don't know where you live but that is not the case here. I understand that you are extremely anti-police and there is nothing I can say that will make you think anything different. Your venomous attacks on law enforcement agencies and officers reveal your stance quite clearly. I have seen several of the videos showing police brutality on youtube and when I first saw them I was furious at the police officers' behavior also. When these types of things happen all the cops trying to to a good job and do it the right way end up paying for it. I still get Rodney King comments every now and then and how long ago was that. One thing you need to keep in mind about the youtube videos is that they are posted and sometimes edited by individuals with an agenda. I have seen videos that show the officers' actions that appeared to be horribley inappropriate but then later I was able to see the video in it's unedited entirety and got a whole different perspective. I'm not saying that they are all that way. I know that there are plenty of cops that are no better than the low lifes that they are hired to defend the public against. At the same time I know that a majority of men and women in law enforcement are honest people trying to do a good job within the rules and still get shit on regularly.

 

i'm not anti-police, i'm anti-bad eggs, and anti-bad tactics. the bad tactics need to be changed asap. i know the majority of LEOs are good people, trying to do their job the right way (both legally and morally). an in-law of mine is a deputy.

 

venomous attack on police? saying they shouldn't be able to lie to and intimidate kids that get caught with a joint or less? does a small town with almost no crime (1 murder every 20 yrs) really a need a swat team, infrared on every cruiser and suv, and required kevlar?

[bigj480 203]

The last thing I will say about this, for those who are interested in the truth, is that "no-knock" is simply a method that is used in certain very limited circumstances to serve an ordinary search/arrest warrant that has already been issued.

 

 

I don't know that these methods are used only when appropriate and neither do you. As a matter of fact, the evidence is that they are used inappropriately in at least in a small percentage of cases. I'm not saying no knock warrants are wrongly carried out every day, but it happens. Can you prove this "very limited" use? I'm sure it's left up to the judge who probably gets very vague guidance as to when it is appropriate. As a percentage, there is no doubt that no-knock search warrants make up the minority because most crimes don't even vaguely justify it. The question is, in what instances are these are they issued and how consistently are restrictions followed.

 

There is no "presumption of guilt" that goes into determining if using the "no-knock" method of serving a warrant is justified. Rather, there must be compelling, credible information indicating that the risks (to police and/or others) would be substantially greater using the "knock and announce" method of warrant service as opposed to the "no-knock" method. Some departments may also allow the "no-knock" method to be used if it would otherwise be likely that crucial evidence in a major case would be disposed of. In most cases, I would not approve of this last justification alone.

 

OK, if there is no presumption of guilt how do you justify busting into an innocent mans home, pointing guns at the occupants and making him file a civil suit and pay a lawyer in order to get the PD to pay for damages? PDs pay for many things to reduce the risk to officers and the public, that's great, there needs to also be a system that pays for damages caused by this tactic besides the court system. Maybe there is and I just don't know abut it. The bottom line is that there needs to be specific federal limitations on when these tactics are to be approved. By specific, I mean that they need to specify what prior convictions a person would have to have to be considered violent enough to warrant such tactics. Also, I don't care what I'm wanted for, if I don't have a documented violent past you knock on my door or use any method but this one. I should be considered innocent and have a chance to prove it in court.

[bigj480 203]

In answer to the first question regarding the suspect's crime or history. Both past and present have to be considered before going into a residence to make an arrest. Again I can only speak for my state and jurisdiction. In any felony arrest an officer has to use a certain degree of caution but by looking at the whole picture you get a better idea of who you are dealing with and how to best take the wanted person into custody. If it is deemed safer to take a person in his yard, at his work or at home then the plans are made and carried out. By safer I'm not only talking about for the officers but for the suspaect as well. We can't read minds, we have to go on the wanted person's past reactions and the degree of violence that we are aware of. In some cases we may not have any information on the person's past. We can only do the best we can in the safest manner possible.

 

In those case where you don't know the suspects past no knock warrants are not used, correct? Even if wanted for a violent crime which they may or may not be guilty of?

 

As for dammage caused by gaining entry; If the court agrees that there is probable cause and grants a search warrant, then the department is given permission to make entry. The permission is give by a judge that is elected by you the public. If you don't like the way these types of warrants are conducted then change it at election time.

 

I totaly agree, but I also feel that judges shoud follow a more detailed/restricted guideline for making such decisions.

 

If the suspect is found guilty then that's too bad. They need to find somewhere else to conduct whatever illegal activties they are involved in.

 

What if they live with someone else, like a relative?

 

If found not guilty then that is where the civil process ussually starts. Again the court gave permission to conduct the search finding that there was sufficient probable cause. In the civil proceedings the evidence for the probable cause will picked apart and looked at through a microscope. That is why I said earlier that you had better have your ducks in a row, all t's crossed and I's dotted. In the civil case the department and officers involved are all in jeopardy of paying for any dubious evidence fabrication or tampering. These civil cases have become quite popular over the last few years. If you know any officers, ask them how many times they have been involved in a civil suit. If wrong doing is found on the part of the officers, then the grand jury gets involved. Certifications get pulled and jail terms are handed out at that level. People think officers just run around doing whatever thay want without consequences but that is just not true.

 

Some people may think that, I don't, but they are human and do make mistakes. I don't think that people found innocent should have to hire a lawyer and go to court to receive payment for damages, it should automatically be awarded if found innocent. Would the PD pay for the plaintiff's lawyer? Also, this indicates that even if one is found innocent, there is a chance that they will not get the damages paid for. All the PD has to do is prove that it was reasonable to execute the no knock warrant. The courts probably rule in there favor even in the few cases that result from no knock warrants. I also want to point out that even if it is reasonable for the police to use this tactic in a particular case, the innocent party should be reimbursed. I do not expect the police to be perfect or be able to predict the future, but they should pay for their mistakes.

 

As for identifying themselves. That is most definitely yes. Both visual (uniforms clearly marked police, deputy sheriff, DEA, FBI, ect) and verbally.

 

Yeah, but you left part of the question out, did they give the suspect time to drop his gun or even ask him to do so? The verbal identification is great, but it is not sufficient, so I have to wait to see the intruders. If my house is dark and they come in with flashlights, I may not be able to see them. So am I to assume that they are LEOs and drop my gun if asked? What are the odds that I would get shot before identifying the intruders? will I have time to do so? It's just an unlikely, but bad situation.

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[quinci956 1]

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by madmilo

[Modiano 5]

What are the circumstances of the incident you keep talking about where officers lied to and intimidated kids caught with a joint or less? Were you one of those kids? What were the officers you are talking about trying to gain by telling lies and using intimidation?

in a post above i stated:

"a police dept of a neighboring town i grew up in had a really bad habit of threatening kids who had practically nothing...a joint or a roach...they'd say, 'we'll let you go tonight if you call us tomorrow and tell us where were can find a 1/4lb'. is that kid going to give the name of the REAL big time dope man? no, they'll be scrounging to name some little guy they don't like or just make something up because they don't know a real dope man.

sad part of that is, once the cops let the kid go...HE'S FREE and he doesn't even know it. he doesn't have to ID anyone and they can't charge him for that roach after the fact. he'll probably just get harassed by the same cops that lied to him in the first place. they'll pull him over when they see him or shine spot lights in his house."

 

 

no, i was not one of those kids, but would hear about that same thing happening to someone i personally knew at least once a year. and it wasn't just kids that they'd use that tactic on...middle aged union boys too.

 

what do they gain by lying and intimidating...you should know this: consent to search property you couldn't search because their wasn't probable cause, and admission to guilt.

 

What town do you live in where a the crime rate is so low that SWAT, kevlar, and infra red is not needed. Not all SWAT units are full time. A majority of them are maned by officers that work patrol, investigations, or some other position in the department. When and if they are needed then they are called out to handle a situation that is too dangerous for a regular patrol officer. They train and are equipped in case they are needed. It is better to have it not need it instead of need it and not have it. The department I work for has such a SWAT team. We volunteer for a position on the team and do not get payed anything extra to be there. The team is funded with confiscated drug money so there is no additional cost to the tax payers. Why would you want to take Kevlar away from an officer. I guess the motorcycle officers should not be allowed to wear helmets either. Our department does not have infra red in every car but it would be nice. We have a lot of night time burglaries and the infra red would sure be helpful in locating the burglars either in the act or after they have run and hidden from responding officers.

 

the 14,000population town i'm talking about doesn't have nighttime burglaries...ok, maybe 1 a year. the swat team is volunteer, just like yours. the most use the infra red gets is watching kids in the park make out..maybe even some oral sex. as i said before, there is a murder ever 20 years on average. violent crime is pretty much nonexistant. little bit of domestic violence, maybe some highschool kids throwing some fists. the only crimes are 1. bad checks, 2. traffic violations, 3. minor drugs (marijuana, some pills). no gangs, and few illegal immigrants.

 

the reason that police dept can afford swat, infra red, and kevlar is because they got a bunch of money BECAUSE they had a low crime rate. if there isn't any real crime to fight, what are the cops going to do with all their toys? do they donate them to other cities in the county that could actually put them to good use? no, they harass kids.

 

i have never had a criminal charge. but i HAVE had my car's paint scratched by a K9 unit. they claimed i was speeding, but wouldnt say the speed...then they said if they dog walked around my car i could go free (all without probable cause). at the time, i didn't know how to properly assert to my rights, so i said sure. that stupid dog scratch my drivers door and tailgate. had a friend who's truck seat was broken when (different officers, but same city) tore his truck up without probable cause...and didn't find anything.

 

so...i'm not anti-police when i say that cops should follow proper procedure, act within the law, not intimidate citizens into giving up their rights, and stick to fighting real crime. thats not too much too ask.

 

theres a lecture on youtube you can watch. its titled "Don't Talk to the Police". 1/2 is by a law professor, the other 1/2 is by a detective working to become a lawyer. check it out. good knowledge for everyone.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Modiano

[mstranglr 9]

I see both sides of the issue as having valid points.

 

My next door neighbor's house (when I lived in LA) was entered on a no-knock warrant. No one was arrested and LEO apologized and left quickly. Turns out his cousin robbed a bank. Another family member (with a record) was being shaken down and told the police that the bank robber might be staying at my neighbor's house. My neighbor had not seen his cousin in 10 years so cops moved on to the next lead and eventualy caught the bad guy. That a warrant was issued on this flimsy information is disturbing to me and I hope this is not the norm in LA. Luckily no one was hurt, just kids scared and family rattled from armed men bursting into house. I can see where someone experiencing something like this would gain a general distrust and fear of LE and resort to words like "gustapo". I am not going to single out cops as a bad lot, because they are people like everyone else, good and bad. Not all agencies and localized judicial systems operate as respectably and diligently as yours does madmilo. Each agency, and especialy geographic location, has a different LE culture. Trust me, LE and court culture in American Falls Idaho is very different than that of Washington DC. A Houston cop would be disgusted at the PC crap that is part of the San Francisco PD culture. I love my local Sherriff's dept (very pro 2nd amendment), but other agencies in California envoke a culture of gun-grabbing. I think it is unfair when people lump all LEO together as somehow being part of some grand agenda to sh!t on peoples rights. It is not true.

 

I believe that there is a place for no-knock warrants. A very narrow scope of work where the intel is rock solid and there is a grave risk to the officers involved. Cops are just going to use the tools available to them to get the bad guy with as little risk as possible. The judge that signs some of these warrants should be accountable IMO, not those serving the warrant.